The paradigm of global climate change has been continuously shifting for decades. Currently, it is argued that global warming is the cause of human-induced emissions of greenhouse gasses. If no further measures are taken, it is possible that the Earth will be warmer by 1.5 – 2 degrees Celsius. This could lead to many natural disasters, some even affecting regions in Western countries that are in the present hard to imagine. Think about extreme drought, floods and wildfires in the Netherlands – a very strange concept to grasp. There was even a study published that suggested that more global pandemics will follow due to climate change, marking the COVID-19 pandemic as the start of many more.
It is clear that the current school of taught about the future of climate change is as concerning as hippie inspired water preserving practices in restrooms such as “If it’s yellow, let it mellow. If it’s brown, flush it down”. I would never wish someone to live in such a world, especially when your daily concerns are natural disasters (or that your toilet water is always yellow for that matter). Fortunately, decades of climate change research had not been taken for granted by many world leaders, causing them to sign the Paris Agreement in 2016. It is an agreement, in which a collective goal is stated to reach net-zero emission by the second half of the 21st century.
Unfortunately, many companies do not fully comply to the Paris Agreement. Of course, most companies will admit the existence of climate change and the importance of taking actions. However, it is the extent to which they will work on it that is questionable. At the end of the day, they want to continue making profits under conditions of certainty, which in this case is extending their current practices for as long as possible. Shell is a great example of a company being reluctant about implementing green policies as fast as possible. H&M, another ‘committed’ company with bold green statements.
To prevent cancel culture, that is banning a certain entity from their life, companies like Shell and H&M would market themselves as green. Just as how some people do not like to be fat shamed, companies do not want to be ‘energy shamed’, otherwise they could lose customers and thus revenue. Unlike fat shaming that is extremely unhealthy to be practiced on, the practice of energy shaming could actually be a great starting point for a greener tomorrow. Here is a hint how: blockchain technology.
Energy Web (EW) is a non-profit organization that uses open-source blockchain technology to keep track of which companies are using green energy for their daily operations. The idea is that individuals and companies receive incentives to join EW’s network of validators on the blockchain. Doing so, all the involved stakeholders could check upon each other if they are using clean energy or not. Since it uses blockchain technology, it is therefore impossible for companies to lie about their energy sources. Thus, if a stakeholder does not believe that Shell is using green energy, one could easily check that on EW’s network. This is quite plausible given how many established companies are already part of this network (like Shell). It is also the nature of EW being open-source that makes it more reliable.
Then the question arises: what does the validator actually check to confirm the use of green energy? Simply said, being part of EW’s network, means that you have to buy green energy from grid operators that are EW and European Union (or any other regulatory body) approved as for being a green energy supplier. The idea is that companies receive a number of certificates per volume kWh energy that they order from these grid operators. These certificates are called Energy Web Tokens (EWT), that could be validated on EW’s network. EWTs also state where the energy comes from and when it was generated. Thus, in other words, if H&M wants to check if Shell is using clean energy, it would check if Shell possesses the right amount of EWTs through EW’s network. If it appears that Shell is lying about their energy sources, Shell could be energy shamed, likely by its direct competitors like BP.
Is energy shaming going to solve climate change entirely? Probably not. However, it is a great steppingstone to encourage companies to use clean energy. Hopefully, if the world gets greener, I can retire without any stress about the environment or any peculiar hippie practices.
:
References
https://www.energyweb.org/about/what-we-do/
https://www.medium.com/energy-web-insights/issuing-certificates-with-the-ew-origin-sdk-part-ii-e18fa907c57
https://www.shell.com/media/news-and-media-releases/2021/shell-confirms-decision-to-appeal-court-ruling-in-netherlands-climate-case.html
https://www.shell.com/energy-and-innovation/digitalisation/news-room/blockchain-building-trust-to-enable-the-energy-transition.html
https://www.pressroom.ifc.org/all/pages/PressDetail.aspx?ID=18195
https://www.green.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/22/hippies-hollywood-and-the-flush-factor/
https://www.propublica.org/article/climate-infectious-diseases
https//www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2021/08/1-5-or-2-degrees-celsius-of-additional-global-warming-does-it-make-a-difference
